Abstract
Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G. T., Payne, G. T., & Zachary, M. A. (2014). Researching long-term orientation: A validation study and recommendations for future research. Family Business Review, 27(1): 72-88.
The authors have provided the following clarifications to correct issues in the developed measure and report relevant changes. Specifically, two errors were observed by the authors. First, several words were included in more than one of the developed word lists, which violated the intentions of the authors to keep each word list mutually exclusive. Second, in re-analyzing the data with the corrected word lists, an error in the original content analysis was discovered. A common error in the DICTION 5.0 software limited the analysis of the corpus of documents. In response, the authors re-analyzed the data using an updated version of the software (i.e., DICTION 7.0). Below are corrections to the paper subsequent to these errors.
We updated Tables 1 and 2 on page 77 with the corrected word lists and examples. Specifically, the terms “incessant”, “persist”, “persisted”, “persistence”, and “persistent” were removed from the continuity word list (in favor of their inclusion in the perseverance word list) and the terms “constant” and “sustain” were removed from the perseverance word list (in favor of their inclusion in the continuity word list). The updated tables are included below.
Word List for Long-Term Orientation Dimensions.
Examples of Long-Term Orientation Dimensions in About Us Pages.
We also examined the unstandardized values generated in the content analysis procedure; we previously stated that we standardized the values. The use of standardization in content analysis studies varies in the literature and is less common in measurement development (e.g., Short, Payne, Brigham, Lumpkin, & Broberg, 2009; Zachary, McKenny, Short, & Payne, 2011). Accordingly, the overall values reported on page 76 should be 6.150, 7.697, and 0.937 for the continuity, futurity, and perseverance dimensions, respectively. Further, the discussion on page 76 regarding the standardization procedure should be disregarded as, again, we utilized the unstandardized values.
Finally, we re-analyzed the data using the revised word counts. The updated results in Tables 3-6 on pages 78-80 are reported below. We found no significant differences between the results of the original study and our revised analysis reported in Tables 3, 4, and 5. The results of Table 6 suggest that continuity and futurity rhetoric are more common among firms in the mining, transportation, communication, and utilities industries. However, it appears that firms are largely consistent in their use of perseverance rhetoric across industries, which likely reflects the generally ubiquitous need to persevere in the face of competition and environmental uncertainty. To a lesser extent, futurity and continuity rhetoric appear to be associated with firms in wholesale trade and services industries, respectively.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Measures.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
Factor Analysis (All Firms).
p < 0.01.
Two-Sample t Tests of Differences in LTO between Family and Non-Family Businesses.
p < 0.10.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
Multinomial Logit Regression Estimates for Long-Term Orientation and Dimensions.
Intercepts in parentheses ( ).
p < 0.10.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.